openwebbeans-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question on Interceptors and CDI specifications/versions
Date Sun, 09 Nov 2014 05:47:27 GMT
Ok

This is the responsability of the ejb container, not cdi. IIRC it should
work as well.
 Le 9 nov. 2014 00:41, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <itsmeden@gmail.com> a écrit
:

> Hi Mark
>
> We have the beans.xml in place, will check the private and exception on
> monday when Im back to office.
>
> Regards
> Lars-Fredrik
>
> On Nov 8, 2014 11:13 PM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lars-Fredrik!
> >
> > @AroundInvoke is indeed supported in CDI-1.0 and thus also in WAS. I'm
> using it heavily at some customers . Do you have a beans.xml in WEB-INF?
> WAS needs this (not required by the spec, but anyway).
> > Probably WAS has a problem with private around-invoke methods. You might
> also check if your method declares 'throws Exception'. This is required by
> the spec ans WAS is pretty picky about it.
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, 8 November 2014, 17:42, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Just a doubt: you asked about around invoke but spoke about timeout.
> Timeout should be supported IIRC but we did it after several releases ie
> not 1.0.
> > >Le 8 nov. 2014 15:02, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <itsmeden@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> > >
> > >Thanks Romain.... then I will submit a bugreport....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>/Fredrik
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Iirc aroundinvoke was supported since the beginning
> > >>>Le 8 nov. 2014 14:05, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <itsmeden@gmail.com>
a
> écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> @Romain
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I know WAS uses OWB and, as you say, some obsolete version.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I was just curios in what CDI and OWB version the support was added.
> If I try to bug report something that is not in Java EE 6 I will get the
> cold hand I guess :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>It is in tomee and by spec. No idea in WAS which has obsolete
> versions
> > >>>>>Le 8 nov. 2014 13:47, "Lars-Fredrik Smedberg" <itsmeden@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Hi!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>As I can see JSR318 contains two specifications, EJB 3.1
> Specification and Interceptors 1.1 (and later on Interceptors 1.2 MR)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>EJB 3.1 as well as Interceptors 1.1 are included in Java
EE6.
> > >>>>>>Interceptors 1.2 is included in Javav EE7.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>When I look in Inteceptors Specification 1.1 I find no references
> to a specific CDI version or to CDI at all.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>When I look in Interceptors Specification 1.2 I see the
following:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>1.2 Relationship to Other Specifications
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>"...and the CDI specification requires support for the chapters
> 2,3 and 5 (excluding 5.5)."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>CDI specification here points to "JSR346 - Context and Dependency
> Injection for the Java EE Platform 1.1 (CDI specification)"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>2.7 Timeout Method Inteceptors
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>"Interceptor methods that interpose on timeout methods are
denoted
> by the AroundTimeout annotation."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>"Around-timeout methods can have public, private, protected
or
> package level access. An around-timeout method must not be declared as
> abstract, final or static."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Question:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>1) From the Interceptors 1.2 I understand that @AroundInvoke
is
> okay to use with a CDI interceptor using CDI 1.1, correct?
> > >>>>>>2) What about CDI 1.0 (JSR 299) and Interceptors 1.1, is
> @AroundInvoke also okay with CDI 1.0? I find no information on that?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>The reason I ask is that I do not get it to work with WebSphere
> 8.5.5 that uses OWB (with a version that atleast should support CDI 1.0).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Regards
> > >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>--
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
> > >>>>>>The information contained in this electronic message and
any
> > >>>>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive
use of
> the
> > >>>>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged
> information. If
> > >>>>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik
> Smedberg
> > >>>>>>immediately at itsmeden@gmail.com, and destroy all copies
of this
> > >>>>>>message and any attachments.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg
> > >>>>
> > >>>>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
> > >>>>The information contained in this electronic message and any
> > >>>>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of
the
> > >>>>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information.
> If
> > >>>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik
> Smedberg
> > >>>>immediately at itsmeden@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this
> > >>>>message and any attachments.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>
> > >>Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
> > >>
> > >>Lars-Fredrik Smedberg
> > >>
> > >>STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
> > >>The information contained in this electronic message and any
> > >>attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
> > >>address(es) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
> > >>you are not the intended recipient, please notify Lars-Fredrik Smedberg
> > >>immediately at itsmeden@gmail.com, and destroy all copies of this
> > >>message and any attachments.
> > >
> > >
>

Mime
View raw message